The Trump administration is vigorously advocating for the U.S. Supreme Court to sanction certain limits on birthright citizenship amidst ongoing judicial disputes surrounding President Donald Trump’s directives aimed at terminating what many regard as a constitutional assurance.
This past Thursday, the administration lodged urgent submissions with the nation’s highest court seeking permission to revoke citizenship from individuals born on U.S. soil after February 19 if their parents are in the country without legal documentation. Currently, district judges in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington have obstructed the enforcement of this order, originally signed by Trump shortly after he assumed office in January. As it stands, the order remains blocked across the United States.
Birthright citizenship ensures that anyone born within U.S. borders automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, encompassing children born to parents without legal status in the country. This right was firmly embedded in the Constitution following the Civil War through the 14th Amendment.
Trump and his proponents argue for stringent criteria for American citizenship, describing it in his executive decree as “a priceless and profound gift.” Nonetheless, legal experts contend that the constitutional safeguards afforded by the 14th Amendment would render it exceedingly tough to invalidate.According to Trump, eliminating birthright citizenship is a long-held ambition. “It’s ridiculous. We are the only country in the world that does this with the birthright, as you know, and it’s just absolutely ridiculous,” he remarked in January. Despite his comments, numerous countries, primarily in the Americas, uphold birthright citizenship.
Critics assert that this practice incentivizes illegal immigration, with some suggesting that abolishing birthright citizenship could severely harm the nation. Alex Nowrasteh, vice president for economic and social policy studies at the Cato Institute, a pro-immigration think tank, opined that removal of this practice “could eventually place every single person in America in the precarious position of having to prove American citizenship” after Trump’s order. In 2019, the Migration Policy Institute estimated that approximately 5.5 million children under the age of 18 lived with at least one undocumented parent, accounting for about 7% of the U.S. child demographic. Notably, the majority of these children were American citizens.
The legal perspective is clear: the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified by Congress in July 1868 in the post-Civil War era, states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Historically, this was not universally applicable; it wasn’t until 1924 that Congress extended citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S.
Trump and those advocating for stricter immigration measures argue that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” should empower the U.S. to refuse citizenship to children born to individuals residing illegally.
Notably, the emergency appeal does not dispute the legal standing of the presidential order per se. Instead, it questions the expansive reach of the federal judges’ rulings. The Justice Department contends that individual judges should not have the authority to enforce their judgments nationwide. It’s worth noting that five conservative justices on the Supreme Court have previously expressed skepticism about such nationwide injunctions, though the court has not yet issued a definitive verdict on the issue.
